On 2014-11-22 14:56, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > On 22/11/14 13:16, Leif Johansson wrote: >> On 2014-11-21 17:24, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> On Nov 20, 2014, at 9:40 PM, Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> "The named curve registry contains 160-bit elliptic curves which are >>>> considered to be roughly equivalent to only an 80-bit symmetric key >>>> [ECRYPT-II]. The use of curves of less than 192-bits is NOT >>>> RECOMMENDED." >>> >>> Good catch, and this should be added to the text. >>> >>>> In the last paragraph the use of the term fingerprint seems odd and >>>> perhaps misleading. I think the term hash algorithm would be better: >>>> >>>> "the use of the SHA-256 hash algorithm is RECOMMENDED" >>> >>> Yep. >> >> Still only one voice of support for this change. Consensus is rough to >> the point of almost being absent. > > I think the changes above are fine to make if changes are being done. > > I didn't post before because I thought they should be uncontroversial > not because I didn't support the changes. (And I'd also trust you chairs > to identify such uncontroversial changes without each one getting a load > of +1's - if you judge them so and say that to the list, then we get a > chance to object if we think you've called it wrong. And then there's > IETF LC etc. afterwards anyway.) >
thx _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
